The National tribune., 1887-07-07
"CONFEDERATEs" OR "REBELs."
The Boston journal SAYS editoriallY:

When Gen. Grant WAS consulted on the subject
of writing his papers for The Centttry maya
zine, lac was met, among other difficulties in his
own MIND by the doubt 10 what term lac should
apply TO the Southern portion Of the contendiBg
forces in that struggle. 81 am used 10 speaking OF
them as rebels" said he. But" remarked the
gentleman with whom he was conversing, You
would not address them rebels M your own
table, IL you had invited them there would you ?n
a. No." said the General, without a moments hest
tation, ] would not" aud lac easily came 10 the
conclusion that for the purposes Of the relation of
history. AZ he undertook 10 write IL, be would sub
stitute the word Confederate" for rebels"
The situation Of Gen. Grant and that Of President
Cleveland under circumstances a good deal SINH
lar, are not without analogy. Gen. Grant looked
AT the subject with the feeling Of a brave soldier
and an honorable gentleman. In the one charac-
ter he would not consult a conquered foe; in the
other he was mindful Of the couresies which regu-
late social intercourse. he, therefore. treating
those Southern with whom he was in
restored amicable relations as he would treat
personal guests, called them "Confederaies,p
and not rebels. Nobody criticized or complained
OF him for the act. President Cleveland, eucoun-
terng something OF the same state Of affairs, has
followed Gen. Grants example. The rebels are
something more than President Cleyeiand's per-
sonal guests-ihey are the guests Of the Nation.
They went away from the National board. We
invited them TO return TO il aud share IFS bountos
with ourselves. There a bad gulf between
them and the past ia taking this step. IT could not
be forgotten either side; but AS brethren who
had been estransed and proposed to be roconciled,
il was incumbent upon us 10 make as little refer
euoe 10 il a. possible When brave men are recon-
| ciled they are rcconcilcd wholly. Mhen chivanc
viciors invite the yanquished 10 meet them, il is
not 10 aunt the latter with past mistakes or past
conlumRcy. IL is rather 10 ignore the past in its
unpleasant feeling a. much az possible.
The comparison thst struck the mind Of Gen
Grant holds ia much the same way with President
/ Cleveland. President Cleveland was called upon
officially TO designate the States that had been in
rebellion lie recognized them as now having
seats as it were, about the great National
table. They had been invited there by our
selves. and given anew right which they
lad forfeited. There are men mean
enough 10 take away from the dignity and the
magnaninliiy Of this great act by taunting these
returned brethren with their past trAnsgressions.
They injure the section which has 10 bear the re
spousibility for themselves more than they do any
one else by their course The instinct Of men liIze
Gen. Grant revolts against 81. ~ guess We can az
ford 10 call them Confederates for this OCCASION
said the old hero. President Cleveland In a similar
position, has thought 70 too There was no politi-
cal motive 10 Rssa Gen Grant for e. and il there.
fore passes proper. without cavil. There is an
assumed chance for political capital. and holy
horror is affected in the case Of President Ceye.
land.
But President Cleveland Is speaking officially
we may be told. There are occasions when a
euphemism may be used ia official documents AZ
well a. elsewhere. Our diplomatic correspondence
r. FUN Of such expressions. The word II a euphem
ism, and nothing more, in this connection. Nc
one believes that the President meant 10 claim
anything further for H. This talk that lac has diff
ferent ideas about the late contest the charaote
Of the Government, from those who carp al him. q
simply bosh. framed and uttered with the inten
b. msrepresent and deceive. II Gen. Grant coulS
appropriately designate his rebellous countryIner
as " Confederates." President Cleveland could fol
low the example without offending il does no
alter the fact, and IL was not meant 70 alter tia
) fact, in either case.
: The Journal stupidity misunderstood
: the whole question. There is no objection
{ 10 calling the men who were in arms agains
the Government Confedcratesn instead O
; "rebels" If anyone thinks that "Confeder
I ates is "a more tenderer word, as the eide
> Weller wonld say. THE NATIONAL TRIB
UKE sometimes uses one and sometimes tn